From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv2 1/2] Export SoC info through sysfs Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 22:22:01 +0200 Message-ID: <201104082222.01634.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1299846911-15782-1-git-send-email-maxime.coquelin-nonst@stericsson.com> <201104081702.17409.arnd@arndb.de> <4D9F2D3F.5010109@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D9F2D3F.5010109@linaro.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Lee Jones Cc: Nicolas Pitre , ext Nishanth Menon , ext Tony Lindgren , Greg KH , Linus Walleij , Ambresh , Saravana Kannan , Andrei Warkentin , Rabin VINCENT , Russell King , Jonas ABERG , ext Kevin Hilman , Peter De-Schrijver , David Brown , Maxime Coquelin , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , Loic PALLARDY , Eduardo Valentin , maxime_coquelin@yahoo.fr, Ryan Mallon , Linux-OMAP linux-ar List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Friday 08 April 2011, Lee Jones wrote: > I didn't say we won't need it. I'm just finding it difficult to picture > how it would work. I'm more than happy to implement it, but there are > more things to take into consideration, such as naming conventions for > multiple SoCs. Even if they start at '1' and increase sequentially, > there are still questions that need to be answered, such as; How will > the SoCs be ordered? First come first served? Priority order? Or we > could name them by soc_id? Any of these would be fine IMHO. In most cases, the order is fixed, either through a board file or through the order in the device tree, so I would just use a sequential number. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 22:22:01 +0200 Subject: [RFC PATCHv2 1/2] Export SoC info through sysfs In-Reply-To: <4D9F2D3F.5010109@linaro.org> References: <1299846911-15782-1-git-send-email-maxime.coquelin-nonst@stericsson.com> <201104081702.17409.arnd@arndb.de> <4D9F2D3F.5010109@linaro.org> Message-ID: <201104082222.01634.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 08 April 2011, Lee Jones wrote: > I didn't say we won't need it. I'm just finding it difficult to picture > how it would work. I'm more than happy to implement it, but there are > more things to take into consideration, such as naming conventions for > multiple SoCs. Even if they start at '1' and increase sequentially, > there are still questions that need to be answered, such as; How will > the SoCs be ordered? First come first served? Priority order? Or we > could name them by soc_id? Any of these would be fine IMHO. In most cases, the order is fixed, either through a board file or through the order in the device tree, so I would just use a sequential number. Arnd